IS is super usefull for me on the 24-105 since i mostly shootstatic things (industrial plant) with this lens on the 1Dhowever very often the platfrom from which i am shooting is vibrating or swaying in some way therefore in this shooting situation IS is essentialand i can reliably shoot down to 1/20th second. in this scenario a faster aperture does nothingalso i shoot mostly at f8 in these things and only open up the lens when lighting is very badah I still dream of a 24-105 f2.8 IS

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least. - For that reason, IS on a 24-70 is not important for that use case, while it is important for a 70-200mm lens used in the same circumstances.

You are just part of an unlucky minority.

Canon possibly didn't consider the video crowd with bringing the 24-70 f/2.8 II to market. On the other hand, if Canon had included IS, all the PJs and wedding shooters would have complained about the unnecessary cost of unneeded IS with the lens.

It looks like Canon can't win - they are bound to make somebody unhappy, no matter what they do!

IS is super usefull for me on the 24-105 since i mostly shootstatic things (industrial plant) with this lens on the 1Dhowever very often the platfrom from which i am shooting is vibrating or swaying in some way therefore in this shooting situation IS is essentialand i can reliably shoot down to 1/20th second. in this scenario a faster aperture does nothingalso i shoot mostly at f8 in these things and only open up the lens when lighting is very badah I still dream of a 24-105 f2.8 IS

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least. - For that reason, IS on a 24-70 is not important for that use case, while it is important for a 70-200mm lens used in the same circumstances.

You are just part of an unlucky minority.

Canon possibly didn't consider the video crowd with bringing the 24-70 f/2.8 II to market. On the other hand, if Canon had included IS, all the PJs and wedding shooters would have complained about the unnecessary cost of unneeded IS with the lens.

It looks like Canon can't win - they are bound to make somebody unhappy, no matter what they do!

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105. It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic. The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

Logged

symmar22

I am not sure I get the point with another 24-70mm. Then why release the v2 ? Was the IQ of the v1 so bad that it needed such an urgent refresh ? Maybe they could have waited a bit more to release a better product with IS. My guess is that a lot of people who bought the v2 will be highly frustrated when the v3 IS is ready.

Same with the 135mm f2 that is an excellent lens and IMO is not the most urgent need.

On the other end, they still have a few very lousy old lenses (20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2.5 macro, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus ), the wide angle zooms are not that good (both 17-40mm and 16-35mm), the TS-E 45mm and 90mm NEED the new design with separate controls, the 100-400mm could use a mechanical update, the 400mm 5.6 cries for an IS, there is no excellent wide angle between 14mm and 24mm (the 17mm TS-E is too specialized and expensive for normal use) and so on....

Instead of refining the 4th version of their tele-converters, maybe they should have a COMPLETE range of modern lenses to start with.

I understand they put a lot of emphasis on the big whites since this is big money, but what is honestly the percentage of photographers who can afford a 13,000$ 600mm f4 (aside from some full time specialized pros) ?

Mr. Canon, we have had a lot of refreshes lately, maybe it would be time to surprise us a bit with something really new....

Come announcement time, Canon delivers a lens at around twice the price of the Tamron with marginally better IQ and no image stabilisation. Oops. Tamron out played Canon.

The Tamron lens is cheaper, yes. One reason is design choices and build quality. Roger Cicala took apart a Canon 24-70 II and found it to be very robustly built. He also had an only-glued-in-place element come loose in several of his Tamron 24-70 VC lenses (yes, they're shipped a lot, but the failures also occurred on pretty new lenses).

I am not sure I get the point with another 24-70mm. Then why release the v2 ?

Think of 2012 as the year in which Canon made multiple tactical errors with their camera/lens lineup for EOS still cameras.

What do I mean by that?

The 24-70/2.8II would have been in the planning for quite some number of years prior and at that time Tamron was developing their 24-70/2.8 VC. Come announcement time, Canon delivers a lens at around twice the price of the Tamron with marginally better IQ and no image stabilisation. Oops. Tamron out played Canon.

The announcement of the 5D Mark III delivered a camera with marginally more pixels and almost the same IQ as the 5D Mark II. Sure the autofocus is better, but it has been outclassed by Nikon's D800 that intro'd at $600 less, only for the 5D Mark III to have since dropped in price to match the Nikon. Oops, Canon picked the wrong sensor to put in the 5D Mark III. Nikon out played Canon.

I see a lot of folks who are happy with the Tamron, but haven't heard of too many who think it out performs the new Canon (optically speaking anyway. Price/value ratio is subjective and may be a different story). The 5dMKiii outclasses the D800 in many types of photography. Other than price class these two camera's cannot be compared, and even that is a meaningless comparison.

Back to the 24-70...I don't really think Canon has room 'above' the V2 price wise. I think if there is going to be another one in the line up, it would have to be a less expensive model with a simpler optical system to save cost. Maybe it would be a fast non-L zoom for consumers, or maybe it would go asn an L series in the $1500 range as a step up from the slower 24-105, still with IS, though lacking the prime-like performance of the V2.

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105. It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic. The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.

I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.

I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.

Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.

So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.

Same with the 135mm f2 that is an excellent lens and IMO is not the most urgent need.

On the other end, they still have a few very lousy old lenses (20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2.5 macro, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus ), the wide angle zooms are not that good (both 17-40mm and 16-35mm), the TS-E 45mm and 90mm NEED the new design with separate controls, the 100-400mm could use a mechanical update, the 400mm 5.6 cries for an IS, there is no excellent wide angle between 14mm and 24mm (the 17mm TS-E is too specialized and expensive for normal use) and so on....

Instead of refining the 4th version of their tele-converters, maybe they should have a COMPLETE range of modern lenses to start with.

I understand they put a lot of emphasis on the big whites since this is big money, but what is honestly the percentage of photographers who can afford a 13,000$ 600mm f4 (aside from some full time specialized pros) ?

Mr. Canon, we have had a lot of refreshes lately, maybe it would be time to surprise us a bit with something really new....

symmar22

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.

But then Canon should design bodies again.

I wonder if anyone ever designed a stabilized converter ?One could thing about a 1.2x that would convert any lens into IS with minimum loss in IQ, angle of view and speed.It would of course not be ideal for WA lenses, but could be a useful accessory.But maybe this is not technically possible (or marketing wise) ?